Communicated on 25 November 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 45840/17 Yuliya Aleksandrovna SEVOSTYANOVA against Russia lodged on 17 June 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Yuliya Aleksandrovna Sevostyanova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Lyubertsy , Moscow Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr N. Zboroshenko , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

According to the official version of the events, on 29 December 2016 the police arrested the applicant for blocking the access to a construction site. The applicant refused to comply with the policemen ’ s order to leave the site. The applicant was taken to the police station where she was held pending examination of her case by a court.

On 30 December 2016 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow heard the applicant ’ s case on the charge of refusal to comply with the lawful policemen ’ s order. The applicant maintained her innocence. She denied having blocked access to the construction site. She explained that the purpose of her visit to the area had been to find out if the felling of the trees had actually taken place in a historical park. The court found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of 600 Russian roubles (RUB). It heard the applicant, her lawyer and S., who had been present at the site with the applicant, and reviewed the administrative case ‑ file. The court dismissed the applicant ’ s account of the events noting that it was not supported by the materials in the case-file or S. ’ s statement. The applicant appealed. She complained, inter alia , that the District Court had not questioned the police officers or examined the video footage of her arrest made by one of the persons present at the site.

On 14 February 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal. The court heard the applicant, her lawyer and the police officers who had arrested the applicant. It also examined the video footage finding it of poor quality.

The applicant was held at the police station for approximately 14 hours 30 minutes. She spent the first three hours in a conference room. Then the police questioned her and other detainees for another three hours. After that the applicant and five other detainees of both genders were taken to a cell measuring 8 sq. m. The cell was stuffy and the light was on all the time. There were no beds. The applicant had to remain seated. No bed linen was provided. A hot meal was given to her only once. It included some instant food dissolved in hot water and was practically inedible. There was no toilet in the cell. The applicant was allowed to use the toilet in the building only once. It was dirty and no toilet paper was available. The toilet was not lit and the applicant had to leave the door open.

On 30 December 2016 at approximately 2.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to the courthouse in a van. She was held in a van compartment with 16 other persons, the personal space afforded to each of them was about 0.3 sq. m. The applicant was given no food or water until her release at 5 p.m.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of her detention at the police station.

The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 13 of the Convention that her arrest and detention were unlawful.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts which considered her case were not impartial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the material conditions of the applicant ’ s detention at the police station from 29 to 30 December 2016, in particular, the personal space available in the cell, and the availability of sanitary facilities, meals, drinking water, beds and bed linen, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Fedotov v. Russia , no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005)?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Were the applicant ’ s arrest and detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11 , §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014) ?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 5, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5. Were the courts which dealt with the applicant ’ s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08 , §§ 38-85, 20 September 2016) ?